What's the difference between In-Camera Stabilisation and lens stabilization?

J

Jhbgirl

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to decide on a macro 100mm lens and I see the one with IS is almost double the price? Can someone explain to me what it means and if I need IS?
 
The one performs the image stabilisation in the camera body while the other does it in the lens. The technology basically reduces blurring if the camera is in motion, ie your hand shaking etc of which the effect is more noticeable with a slower shutter speed and longer zooms.

Some reading for you:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/dslr-dilemma/dslr-image-stabilization/
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-features/camera-parts/image-stabilization/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
 
Last edited:
@Jhbgirl, the only difference is where the stabilisation happen. How efficient each is depends on a few things. On lens based systems, all IS is not created equal. For example, the IS in my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM is streets ahead of the IS in my old EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS in the same range. Also, I imagine that the longer the focal length, i.e. the more pronounced the camera shake if you're hand-holding, the less effective any sort of stabilisation will be.

The big advantage for IS, and I imagine this would be more pronounced with a 100mm macro (again, if you're hand-holding), is that the viewfinder is stabilised.

The big advantage of in-body stabilisation is that any lens you put on your camera is automatically stabilised, and there's no price premium for stabilised lenses.
 
With regards to the two 100mm Macros, have a look at the respective photozone tests (here and here). There's very little to choose between the two, so the only real differences are the weather sealing and IS, and (to my eye) slightly better bokeh on the L lens.
 
koffiejunkie said:
With regards to the two 100mm Macros, have a look at the respective photozone tests (here and here). There's very little to choose between the two, so the only real differences are the weather sealing and IS, and (to my eye) slightly better bokeh on the L lens.
Click to expand...

The results looks pretty much the same to me...hmm...
 
That's why I linked the two reviews :) To me, the IS would win ever time. Different strokes for different folks though...
 
I just want to know if I'm gonna have to put a non IS lens on a tripod to get any good use out of it?
 
Jhbgirl said:
I just want to know if I'm gonna have to put a non IS lens on a tripod to get any good use out of it?
Click to expand...

You'll get very frustrated using a tripod for macro. Get a flash and an off-camera flash cable to go with the cheaper lens - much more fun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X